hands funds to meet the notes in circulation at the time of the transfer, and since that time has allowed the company to issue the notes to its customers as principals in their transactions with such customers. The very words of the agreement show that this is its true meaning. The firm reserve their right to issue notes, but sell to the company "such benefit of the said issue as is hereby reserved.” If they had said, "we reserve the right, but sell you the benefit of the right," the case would have been plain; they would have made themselves at most bare trustees of the right for the benefit of the company and, when the latter part of the agreement is examined, it is quite clear that that is what has actually been done. The firm of Birkbeck & Co. have deprived themselves of all possible benefit which could accrue to them from the exercise of their right, in consideration of £2 per cent. on the amount of notes in circulation. For what is the benefit of the right? It was suggested to us that its benefit was that it served as an introduction to business. People who came to the bank to change notes would, it was said, come for other purposes. We cannot accept this statement. It is perfectly plain that the benefit to a banker of the right to issue notes (and it can be a benefit to no one else) is, that it operates pro tanto as an increase to his capital. So long as they are in good credit, the power to issue notes to the extent of £70,000 is equivalent, for many purposes, to the Craven Bank, Limited, to the possession of £70,000, which they can employ in their business, and it is for this that they agree to pay £2 per cent. to Birkbeck & Co. What benefit is left to Birkbeck & Co. beyond the £2 per cent? Absolutely nothing, except indeed the bare possibility of being allowed in a highly improbable contingency to retain a compensation to which their right is extremely questionable, to say the least. They must not issue their notes through any other bank. They must not use their firm name except for the purpose of authorizing that issue. If they get any compensation for the loss of their right, the bank is to have it, except in a highly improbable contingency. If the bank gets the right to issue its own notes, they are to discontinue their issue, obviously in order to avoid all competition. The liability of the firm to the holders of the notes remains, but that is no advantage to them, but the reverse. The result is that, in consideration of the payment mentioned, the bank obtain the whole benefit of the privilege of issuing their notes and the sole power of issuing them. This, we think, is in substance and in truth a transfer of the privilege; and the effect of the Bank Charter Act is to prohibit such a transfer, as it forbids any bankers who were not carrying on the business of bankers in 1844, and then lawfully issuing their own bank-notes, to issue notes; and, if our view is correct, the issue of these notes by the Craven Bank, Limited, falls within this principle. This is enough to entitle the Crown to judgment. But there is nother point in the case which is disposed of by the same reasoning,

and applies more particularly to the defendants other than the Craven Bank, Limited. Sect. 12 prohibits any banker who, being entitled to issue bank-notes, "shall cease to carry on the business of a banker," from issuing thereafter such notes. The Crown contended that, on the making of the agreement of 1880, the defendants other than the Craven Bank, Limited, ceased to carry on the business of bankers, and became shareholders or directors of the Craven Bank, Limited. (1) To this it was replied that the effect of the agreement was, that they continued to carry on business as bankers of a bank of issue; and that, by the interpretation clause, the word "bankers applied to every person "carrying on the business of banking whether by the issue of bank-notes or otherwise." It is not impossible that this expression may mean "carrying on business as a banker, whether he issues notes or not ;" and it may have been thought necessary, because in several of the earlier statutes from the days of Queen Anne down to 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 98, the word "bank," and the expression "exclusive privilege of banking," is used to mean a bank of issue as distinguished from a bank of deposit. But, however this may be, it appears to us that the contention of the Crown is well founded.

The effect of the agreement of 1880 appears to us, for the reasons already given, to have been to transfer the business of Birkbeck & Co. to the Craven Bank, Limited, to bind Birkbeck and Co. not to carry on the business of banking, except so far as was necessary to enable them to carry out what was in reality a transfer of their right to issue notes to the Craven Bank, Limited. After the date of that agreement, it appears that the business of a bank of issue was carried on by the Craven Bank, Limited, and not by the other defendants, though the other defendants no doubt continued to authorize the issue of their notes by the Craven Bank, Limited, and to receive payment for their consent to, and participation in, such issue.

For all these reasons we think there must be,

Solicitors for the Crown: Hare & Co.

Judgment for the Crown.

Solicitors for Defendants: Freshfields & Williams.

(1) Clause 14 of the agreement provided that, immediately after the registration of the company, the vendors should subscribe for and have allotted to them 12,500 shares in the nominal original capital of the company in specified proportions, such shares to be allotted and accepted at par, &c.

QUESTIONS ON POINTS OF PRACTICAL INTEREST.

THE COUNCIL desire to express their readiness to receive at all times questions which are of general interest, and in regard to which it would appear desirable to assimilate the practice of bankers.

The following questions have been received, and answers are appended, which, after careful deliberation, the Council have approved :

66

QUESTION I.-A. draws a cheque on a banker, payable to B., the amount in the body in words being "Five hundred and seventy-five pounds," and at the foot, in figures, "£570," which cheque the banker refuses to pay, and returns with the answer " Amounts differ." Is the banker justified in returning the cheque on this ground, or could B., the payee, by taking legal proceedings, compel the banker to pay the amount stated in the body in writing, and any loss or damages caused by the refusal to pay on first presentation ?

ANSWER: Custom would justify the banker in returning such a cheque, and B.'s remedy would be only against the drawer.

QUESTION II. Is the following crossing on a cheque general or special?

and would the drawee be justified in refusing to pay to any other than a Leeds banker?

ANSWER: Neither law nor custom recognise the name of a town as part of a crossing. The word "Leeds" would therefore be disregarded, and the crossing considered a general one.

QUESTION III.-Is a bank in London justified in returning a draft payable to "Anne Gray," because it is endorsed “ Ann Gray.'

ANSWER: He is. Where a payee's name is mis-spelt he should endorse the cheque as therein described, adding, if he think fit, his proper signature.-See Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, sec. 32, ss. 4.

QUESTION IV.-As a general rule, how long after date would a banker return a cheque marked "out of date"?

ANSWER: The practice varies so much with different banks that no general rule can be laid down. From six months to one year are periods frequently acted upon.

QUESTION V.-A cheque on the Lyndhurst Banking Co., payable to D.E., or order, and crossed "Milford Banking Co., for the credit of D.E.'s account." The cheque is duly endorsed by D.E., and stamped by the Milford Banking Co. Can the Lyndhurst Banking Co. require the Milford Co. to place an endorsement on the back of the cheque, stating that it has been placed to the credit of D.E.'s account?

ANSWER: No such endorsement could be required.

QUESTION VI.-When a mortgage has been obtained on a ship to secure account current, and has not been registered, can the mortgagee realise after the bankruptcy of the mortgagor?

ANSWER: We think not.

QUESTION VII.-Does a banker incur any liability in paying to a stranger an uncrossed cheque marked "not negotiable," payable to order and duly endorsed? What duties do the words "not negotiable" impose on a banker?

ANSWER: The Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, deals only with crossed cheques marked "not negotiable," hence the words on an uncrossed cheque would appear to be entirely inoperative.

QUESTION VIII.-A London Joint Stock Bank returned a cheque to a private bank with answer" insufficiently stamped." The cheque bore two halfpenny stamps. Was the bank justified in so doing?

ANSWER: The 45 & 46 Vict., c. 72, sec. 13 and 14, enacts that postage stamps may be used for stamping cheques amongst other documents, and provision is also made for the use of more than one stamp to make up the requisite amount; the use of two halfpenny stamps, therefore, appears to be perfectly sufficient and legal.

QUESTION IX.-Referring to Question V. and the Answer in the Journal for June, is it to be understood that there is now no duty laid upon a banker by law with regard to the exchanging of crossed cheques upon another bank; or in other words, can an exchanging banker treat them as if they are open and uncrossed cheques and cash them across the counter? If the cheques are marked "not negotiable," can the exchanging banker safely cash them across the counter, or must he invariably pass them through a customer's account?

ANSWER: If a banker gives cash across his counter for crossed cheques on another banker, he does so at his own risk.

QUESTION X.-A. B. and C. have a current account with their bankers in the name of B. D. & F., the style of the firm. A. and B., having a business apart from C., have also a current account with the same bank, in the name of B. & D. The bank has money on Deposit Account, the receipts for which are issued in the joint names of A. B. and C. Has the bank a lien on these moneys for any liability on the current accounts of B. D. and F., or of B. and D.? If so, would the lien be affected if the bank had been verbally informed, when the account was first opened, that the money was placed on Deposit, because it belonged to clients of the firm, though no notice was given in respect to the sum now held ?

ANSWER: The bank would have a lien on the deposit account, in respect of the current account of B. D. and F., but no lien in respect of the current account of B. and D. Any such notice given to the bank, as is suggested by the last paragraph, would, as a rule, be disregarded by them.